Sunday, February 17, 2013

Pure Evil.

Via Ninety Miles From Tyranny

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4vbD9iwhZwI/USD1BzCyOnI/AAAAAAAAQNU/JwJHGu75ptA/s640/ninetymilesu8QtfH1rw5dlyo1_500.jpg

FORGET THE INDOCTRINATION: Hitler and Mussolini were "progressives" and men of the left

Via Angry Mike


Daniel Hannan cuts through the disinformation routinely spewed by the pundit class to reveal the true historical nature of fascism, albeit as it pertains to British politics. The lessons, however, are applicable here as well.

'I am a Socialist,' Hitler told Otto Strasser in 1930, 'and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow'.

No one at the time would have regarded it as a controversial statement. The Nazis could hardly have been more open in their socialism, describing themselves with the same terminology as our own SWP: National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Almost everyone in those days accepted that fascism had emerged from the revolutionary Left. Its militants marched on May Day under red flags. Its leaders stood for collectivism, state control of industry, high tariffs, workers' councils. Around Europe, fascists were convinced that, as Hitler told an enthusiastic Mussolini in 1934, 'capitalism has run its course'.

One of the most stunning achievements of the modern Left is to have created a cultural climate where simply to recite these facts is jarring. History is reinterpreted, and it is taken as axiomatic that fascism must have been Right-wing, the logic seemingly being that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists were nasty. You expect this level of analysis from Twitter mobs; you shouldn't expect it from mainstream commentators.

More @ Doug Ross

Immigration Myths: Propping Up Foolish Immigration Policies


Mike Scruggs

There is hardly a public issue less understood than immigration policy. Yet its political impact will decide every public policy—jobs, healthcare, taxes, gun-control, government spending, everything—because it will determine the future electorate. But our immigration policies are based largely on emotion rather than fact and logic, and on deadly political myths rather than truth. Let us examine three of the most popular and dangerous myths that imperil our nation.

Myth 1. Border Security will fix the problem.

Just securing the border will NOT prevent massive illegal immigration. According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), at least 30 to 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country by obtaining legal work, study, tourist, and other temporary visas and then throwing them in the trash and staying in the country indefinitely. According to the Pew Hispanic Institute, more recent illegal entry by visa violation is running close to 50 percent of the total. For decades, the United States has exercised only meager and occasional internal control of who is coming, going, or staying. Once in the country, internal enforcement of immigration law is essentially don’t-ask-don’t-tell except when serious crimes are committed. In fact, because of politically motivated overly zealous civil rights concerns, internal immigration control has been actively discouraged.

Given our negligible and reluctant enforcement of visa laws, sneaking across the U.S. border is increasingly unnecessary for illegal immigrants. Securing the border is necessary, but unless it is accompanied by strong internal enforcement of immigration laws, we have an effectively open-border immigration policy.

The 1987 Amnesty, actually passed by Congress and signed (with considerable reservation) by President Reagan on November 6, 1986, contained many promises of tough-minded internal immigration control, particularly to protect jobs for U.S workers. But as soon as it was passed, these promises were ignored. Internal immigration enforcement, in fact, became progressively dismantled as politicians pandered to ethnic voting blocks and commercial demands for cheaper and easier-to-get imported labor.

Reagan later told his Attorney General Ed Meese that signing the 1987 Amnesty was the greatest mistake of his eight years in the presidency.

Beware of political leaders who emphasize only border security to control illegal immigration. They should know better. My purpose in writing this is that the voters do know better.

Myth 2. Illegal Immigrant workers benefit the economy.

Employment is the great magnet for illegal immigration. Many CIS studies and the work of Harvard labor economist George Borjas confirm that, although there are many notable exceptions, taken as a whole the last several decades of immigrants are not really adding to the economy. They add to the profits of those who employ cheap imported labor, but they are displacing American workers, and their numbers are creating an excess labor supply driving American wages down. This is particularly acute for Americans with a high school education or less and becoming a problem at higher skill levels. That is the reason American workers are not benefiting from top-line economic growth. As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the excessive number of unskilled and poorly educated immigrants—about 80 percent of the total—has created a considerable fiscal drag on federal, state, and local governments, and taxpayers. The Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates this to be about $100 billion per year considering ONLY education, healthcare, and law enforcement. There are other significant but less easily quantified burdens impacting society as well.

The American middle class has grown when labor scarcities have driven real wages higher. This has created opportunities for upgrading skills, (useful) education, prosperity, and investment, while at the same time driving innovation. Contrary to President Obama’s eloquent confusion, amnesty and the massive increases in additional legal and illegal immigration that follow it are totally inconsistent with middle class prosperity.

Beware of those who claim high levels of unskilled labor importation are necessary for the economy. Follow the money and the political motives.

Myth 3.  Republicans can win Hispanic votes by favoring amnesty


Barack Obama owes his 2008 and certainly his 2012 election to dim-witted and corrupt immigration policies going back as far as 1965. The 2012 election revealed that out-of-control immigration was at least near the tipping point of changing the electorate to a Democrat dominated social-welfare constituency.

The 1965 Immigration Act put aside a sane policy allowing immigration preference to spouses, children, and sometimes parents to one extending the preference to an unending chain of siblings, in-laws, and their families. The impact changed the character of U.S. immigration. This “Chain Migration” resulted in massive legal and illegal immigration almost exclusively from third-world countries. Whole villages from India and Mexico immigrated to the United States. The new wave of immigrants was predominantly less educated and less skilled than previous immigrants. Rapidly increasing legal and illegal immigration and amnesties began to create an electoral constituency heavily favoring Democrat social-welfare and tax policies.

The 1986 Immigration Reform Control Act proposed about 1.1 million amnesties. Political pressures and wanton document fraud (at least 25 percent), resulted in a total of 2.7 million amnesties. It was followed by six supplementary amnesties from 1994 to 2000 with more than 3.0 million additional amnesties. President Obama recently gave an unlawful administrative amnesty to over one million illegals. The cumulative effect has been more voters who are primarily attracted to the Democratic Party’s social-welfare spending programs.

Recent immigration history also indicates that Republicans do not improve their Hispanic vote by favoring, sponsoring, or signing amnesties. They actually do worse as Bush I and McCain experienced in 1988 and 2008. Hispanics consistently vote 60 to 75 percent for big-government social-welfare candidates.

Republicans are not going to make a constituency that favors Obamacare by a whopping 69 to 23 percent margin into Republicans by becoming immigration squishes.

Republican failure to oppose immigration policies that have built a huge Democrat-leaning social-welfare constituency has resulted in the position they are in now. If Texas goes Democrat on Hispanic votes, Republicans can never win a Presidential election again except by out-welfaring and out-pandering the Democrats.  But voting for amnesty or other cowardly immigration policies will only make certain the Republican loss of Texas and many other states in 2016. Even worse, they will have lost the confidence and respect of their conservative base, imploding the party from within. Motivating their conservative constituency, not surrendering their principles, is the only honorable and promising path. A hard and principled fight is altogether preferable to amnesty-suicide.

War – Even if Slavery Were Removed As An Issue




http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63392000/jpg/_63392723_138056705.jpg

Abolitionist Moncure Conway (1832 -1907) saw deeper into the question of immediate emancipation than most of his contemporaries. A Virginian who fell under the spell of transcendentalism and Unitarianism, he rightly sensed that the more fierce the North’s desire to subjugate the South became, the more the black man would be used as a weapon to achieve their goal of political supremacy. The postwar Union League which incited Southern blacks against their white neighbors followed this stratagem, against which the Ku Klux Klan became the predictable antidote.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

War – Even if Slavery Were Removed As An Issue:

“Conway’s disenchantment with the Northern cause began in 1862 when his deep-seated hatred of war came again to the fore, overcoming his bellicosity of the previous year. In April, he wrote to Charles Sumner on his recent lecture tour “a growing misgiving that a true peace cannot be won by the sword in an issue of this nature.” His second book, The Golden Hour, which was published that same year, displayed an increasing concern with the evils of war.

“The moralization of the soldier,” Conway now wrote, “is the demoralization of the man. War is the apotheosis of brutality….Should we continue this war long enough, we shall become the Vandals and Hessians the South says we are.”

Complaints about the low morale of the troops meant to him simply that the Northern soldier was still civilized and under the influence of Christian morality. The inescapable conclusion was that the longer the war continued, the more savage and brutalized the North would become. Here he generalized the insight at the end of The Rejected Stone that if emancipation did not come before it became a “fierce” necessity, it would reflect war passions rather than benevolence.

After the President did take up his pen and sign the [proclamation], Conway felt that it was too little and too late. In part this may have reflected his disappointment that the war continued as fiercely as ever; for he had refused as an optimistic humanitarian to believe that the eradication of one evil might require acceptance of another. A case can be made for the theory that Lincoln framed and enforced his edict in such a way that the fewest possible slaves would be freed – while at the same time taking the bite out of antislavery criticism of the administration.

By April 1863, when he sailed for England as an unofficial envoy of the American abolitionists, Conway was completely fed up with the bloody conflict which e saw as inflicting terrible damage on the South without adequate justification…and in any case, war was a worse evil than slavery.

Soon after arriving in England, Conway stirred up a hornet’s nest by making a peace offer to James M. Mason, the Confederate envoy, which he innocently misrepresented as coming from the American abolitionists. Conway proposed to Mason that if the South would abolish slavery on its own, the antislavery men of the North would “immediately oppose the further prosecution of the war…..”

The storm that broke over the head of poor Conway was something from which he never fully recovered. Almost to a man the abolitionists condemned and repudiated his offer. Conway now understood, apparently for the first time, that many of the abolitionists were devoted to a war which would crush the South even if slavery were removed as an issue.”

(The Inner Civil War, Northern Intellectuals and the Crisis of the Union, George M. Frederickson, Harper & Row, 1965, pp. 123-125)


School Custodians Get Green Light To Carry Firearms In School



 61772_212408802230892_1023377757_n

In what is said to be a first of any school system in Ohio, the Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education approved the carrying of handguns by its custodial staff.

 On January 9, 2013 the board voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow handgun training for four custodians in order for them to carry weapons at the Williams County K-12 school after the shooting that took place in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The design of arming the custodians is to thwart incidents of violence and prevent tragedies like the one that occurred in Newtown, school official claim.

“Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn’t happen to you is just not good policy anymore. There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures,” Superintendent Jamie Grime said. “Having guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect.”

School board President Larry Martin said, “Our main goal is to offer safety for our students while they are in the classrooms and in the building. We have to do something and this seems like the most logical, reasonable course to go with.”

The Toledo Blade reported:

Security Guard Fends Off Armed Hold-up Using An AR-15

"Come and Take It"

Via Broken Patriot


“The pilgrims were illegal aliens”

Via NC Renegade

 

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today released previously unseen USDA videos revealing a compulsory “Cultural Sensitivity Training” program requiring USDA employees to bang on tables, chanting in unison “The pilgrims were illegal aliens” while being instructed to no longer use the word “minorities,” but to replace it with “emerging majorities.” Judicial Watch received the videos pursuant to a May 18, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The sensitivity training sessions, described as “a huge expense” by diversity awareness trainer and self-described “citizen of the world” Samuel Betances, were held on USDA premises. The diversity event is apparently part of what USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack described in a memo sent to all agency employees as a “new era of Civil Rights” and “a broader effort towards cultural transformation at USDA.”  In 2011 and 2012, the USDA paid Betances and his firm nearly $200,000 for their part in the “cultural transformation” program.

USDA Training Administrator, Vincent Loran, in an October 10, 2011, email previously revealed by Judicial Watch, asked Betances for a copy of a training video vowing to keep it secret. “It will not be used for or show [sic] in any way shape or form,” Loran promised.  Nevertheless, Judicial Watch was able to obtain the video.  Highlights from the video of the taxpayer-financed diversity training include:
  • USDA Sensitivity Training Video Excerpt 1“If you take a look at all of you here and you think about your salaries and your benefits and what you have left undone – plus my fee – plus the expense of the team that putting the video together, this is a huge expense.”
  •  
  • More @  Judicial Watch

19 Stunning Images Of Nevada's Ghost Towns

Via Daily Timewaster



Berlin, Nevada

Nevada is home to many of the country's ghost towns. Some of them are amazingly preserved, and others only hint at what once was with a few crumbling foundations.

More @ Buzz Feed

Russian Hare Krishnas in India vs Indian police

Via victor_koldun

 

Stop the Compact for America Con-Con Initiative


Ever since the early 1980s when 32 out of the necessary 34 states (two-thirds) had petitioned Congress to call a constitutional convention (con-con) for the purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution, no other movement has come close to getting 34 states to issue a call for a con-con for the same specific purpose. In fact nearly 20 states have gone on to pass resolutions rescinding all of their previous con-con calls.

Now in 2013 a much more complex approach to calling a con-con for the purpose of proposing a BBA to the Constitution has been announced by the Compact for America Initiative. Click on image at left for "How the Compact for America Threatens the Constitution," an article from the January 21, 2013 issue of The New American, to learn more.

The new Compact for America (CFA) Initiative has an ambitious plan for getting 38 states to pass their legislation this year in time for holding a constitutional convention in Dallas on July 4, 2013. As of February 6, CFA reported that CFA bills have been drafted or introduced in four states: Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, and New Mexico. They also reported that the following seven states are getting close to introducing a CFA bill: Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. Even if your state is not in this list, chances are good that you'll have a CFA bill introduced in your state sometime soon

The basic argument against convening an Article V constitutional convention is that based on the right of the sovereign People in convention to alter their government whenever it fails to secure our rights (as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence), an Article V constitutional convention could not be limited as to what amendments might be proposed, and therefore could lead to the proposal and ratification of dangerous alterations to the Constitution. The Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states must ratify any new amendment would not necessarily protect us from harmful amendments because, just as our original Constitutional Convention did in 1787, any new constitutional convention could prescribe an entirely new ratification procedure, such as holding a national referendum.

View the video (image above) of Harvard Prof. Laurence Tribe's 15-minute speech at the Harvard Conference on the Constitutional Convention on September 24, 2011, where he provides a whole list of reasons to avoid calling an Article V constitutional convention.

You can find additional information about the current status of the JBS action project to defeat any state or federal legislation to bring about a constitutional convention at "Choose Freedom -- STOP A CON-CON" on JBS.org.

You are invited to participate in a "National Visit Your State Legislator Day" on February 20, which is being organized by JBS staff and members across the nation. The purpose of visiting state legislators on this day is to inform them about how the Compact for America con-con initiative, and any other con-con calls as well, threaten the Constitution. Click here to get in touch with JBS staff and members in your area.

If you agree with us that holding a constitutional convention would pose an unacceptably high risk of damage to the Constitution, please send an email to your state legislators in opposition to the Compact for America and any other con-con bill as well.

Thanks.

Your Friends at The John Birch Society